US To Create the Independent US Cyber Command, Split Off From NSA (pbs.org) 104
An anonymous reader quotes a report from PBS: After months of delay, the Trump administration is finalizing plans to revamp the nation's military command for defensive and offensive cyber operations in hopes of intensifying America's ability to wage cyberwar against the Islamic State group and other foes, according to U.S. officials. Under the plans, U.S. Cyber Command would eventually be split off from the intelligence-focused National Security Agency. The goal, they said, is to give U.S. Cyber Command more autonomy, freeing it from any constraints that stem from working alongside the NSA, which is responsible for monitoring and collecting telephone, internet and other intelligence data from around the world -- a responsibility that can sometimes clash with military operations against enemy forces. Making cyber an independent military command will put the fight in digital space on the same footing as more traditional realms of battle on land, in the air, at sea and in space. The move reflects the escalating threat of cyberattacks and intrusions from other nation states, terrorist groups and hackers, and comes as the U.S. faces ever-widening fears about Russian hacking following Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election.
Old news. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Now Donald has a real department to refer to when he goes around talking about "the cyber".
Re: (Score:2)
It has just taken this long for the meetings and paperwork to be completed.
So now its something that is actually going to happen and therefor news, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Help Wanted (Score:5, Funny)
Russian language skills definitely a plus.
Re:WTF?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the head of the NSA refused to pledge loyalty to our current President, so...
Re:WTF?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the head of the NSA refused to pledge loyalty to our current President, so...
Which is a good thing, in the US no-one ever pledges loyalty to any individual. They might make a pledge to uphold the Constitution, but as far as I can tell the current President is the first to need personal loyalty from his officeholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a good thing, in the US no-one ever pledges loyalty to any individual.
I completely agree with you. I was pointing it out because it's only recently become an alleged issue.
Re: (Score:2)
...it's only recently become an alleged issue...
Not a huge surprise though.
Re: (Score:2)
You sad motherfucker. You signed a non-disparagement agreement when you voted for Trump.
Pay $5 million now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ty, neighbour.
Re: (Score:1)
in the US no-one ever pledges loyalty to any individual.
Unless you're a GOP Congressperson and you want some of Grover Norquist's money
Then you pledge fealty and do as you are told
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/13/nearly-all-the-gop-candidates-bow-down-to-grover-norquist/?utm_term=.62e6c72ca7d3
Re: (Score:3)
It means there are some things even the NSA will not do.
So they want a new group combining the tech skills of the NSA with the morals of the CIA.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed, comrade
Re:I'd be worried more about the OPM hack (Score:4, Informative)
"Widely debunked" by whom? We know the Russians did manage to break into some election systems in some states. We know that artfully timed email leaks probably had a significant effect on the election results, and we've seen the Russians trying similar stunts with recent European elections.
Just claiming "it's debunked" doesn't make the claims of Russian interference false. All it says is that you have willfully bought into a false narrative, and I'd be curious as to why you have bought into that narrative, considering we now know of at least three recent elections where the Russians were intentionally trying to give their preferred candidate the advantage.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, he's still busy swirling Donald's balls with his tongue, because Donald's penis doesn't come close to filling his mouth.
Like the NSA didn't have enough atonomy... (Score:1)
Pocket protectors? (Score:1)
Fantastic news (Score:3, Insightful)
The goal, they said, is to give U.S. Cyber Command more autonomy, freeing it from any constraints that stem from working alongside the NSA...
[sarcasm] Great... A government agency with less accountability than the NSA. Just what we all needed more of. [/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to undo mod.
Rubbish! (Score:1, Troll)
"... following Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election." Rubbish!
This is not news, or even fact. You are parroting and perpetuating misinformation. After significant effort and expense and, oh, over six months of exhaustive digging, zero evidence can be produced to support this statement. If you're just going to parrot CNN or some other ratings-focused "news" rag, then I can just go there instead of slashdot when I want to be mislead. Seriously, for all the good work you publish here,
Re: (Score:1)
The US intel agencies already did, you fucking morons. Trump Jr. also did himself when he released emails that said so verbatim, fucking illiterate Trumpy bitches.
See you at the firing squad! Too bad we can't get the entire treasonous GOP at once. If Trump had any sense he'd resign now and move to St. Petersburg until that retarded and sleepless faggot dies of senility.
Re: (Score:3)
The word "treason" is not useful in this context.
No United States citizen is declaring war on the United States. The last time that happened was the Civil War.
The United States does not have a list of enemies. The last time that happened was WWII.
--
U.S. Constitution Article III Section 3 [cornell.edu].
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort . No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witne
Re: (Score:3)
Found the Putin shill.
While I completely disagree with the guy, I seriously do appreciate that he posted his opinion under his Slashdot username. There's way too much anonymous shilling (from all sides) happening on Slashdot nowadays.
Re: (Score:1)
Faggot, learn to read. All US intel agencies agree, Russia attempted to hack and undermine US elections directly in dozens and hundreds of ways.
You're a fucking pseudo-illiterate in defense of a moronic ponzi schemer and traitor. Fuck you, non-American punk ass.
Re:Rubbish! (Score:4, Informative)
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are,""
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07... [cnn.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk] (15 December 2016)
"they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers"
AC its more like the Pentagon Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] all over again. US domestic politics.
Re: (Score:2)
More than a few, yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually the question goes the other way: do you have a reason to *trust* them. Anyhow, there are a few things that make me question them, yes.
They've helped destabilize or backed coups in Iran, Guatemala, North Vietnam, Hungary, Laos, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Zaire, Brazil, Indonesia, Greece, Bolivia, Cambodia, Chile, Afghanistan, and probably other places. They've run operations like Operation Mockingbird [wikipedia.org], they helped with Watergate, etc.
The current operation is about like the lies over the WMD. Secret evidence, tons of stories with nothing in them but anonymous quotes.
And even the ODNI report you allude to is getting inflated. It merely said that hacking the election was something Russia might like to do, it didn't give any actual evidence if you read the damned thing. But what the heck does the Coast Guard know about this, anyhow? Oh, right, you probably didn't know who the members of that were. Or that the people who signed this report were just a couple of political appointees.
Same way you guys probably never read the Trend Micro report which everyone talked about and I think only Ars actually bothered to link to.
But sure, please feel free to show me the 'mountain of evidence' of CNN/WaPo stories that all cite each other, anonymous/secret sources, or the ODNI, Crowdstrike or Trend Micro reports that have jack all in them but an old copy of P.A.S. freeware and some Tor exit nodes. But hey, that Advanced Persistent Threat Fancy Bear is everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
> The intelligence on WMD was accurate, professional, and appropriately skeptical. It was GWB's team that rushed to judgment and pushed the narrative of WMD.
That's the trick, though. The ODNI report isn't so bad... it just doesn't actually say anything, nobody actually read it, and stories very rarely ever bother to link to it. It's the rest of the people all pushing stories about how 17 agencies say Russia hacked the election (something NOT in the damned report!).
FWIW, I don't seriously believe they "
Re: (Score:2)
You are parroting and perpetuating misinformation.
Well you are probably a perjuring prevaricator, Pashenka.
Really, you do yourself a grave injustice and insult the intelligence of slashdot readers by driveling opinions without a basis of fact.
Eg, you claim there is "zero evidence" to support "Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election." Lol, just lol. You made your point without any evidence either, but I'll ignore that (this one time) and respond anyway: http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
At this point,
Re: (Score:1)
News stories are not evidence bubalah. Evidence is evidence, after all the lies put out by US mainstream media to have the dear leader Clinton the corporate whore elected, the drivel coming out now is just stupid, so butt hurt about Don Don winning. On one side the trillion dollar entirety of main stream media, probably something like 200,000 agents of various stripes and colours NSA/CIA/FBI oh wait there are 16 of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (screw typing all that out) and now tadah 17 and a hu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh for fuck's sake, that's a load of shit. Several officials have stated Russia was making overt efforts to influence the election, and we now have no less than the President's eldest son releasing emails showing he (quite gleefully) went to a meeting with some Russians, believing he was going to receive damaging materials against Clinton. Furthermore, as I say above, the Russians have been implicated in attempting to interfere in recent European elections.
You may choose to not believe what various members
Re: (Score:2)
we now have no less than the President's eldest son releasing emails showing he (quite gleefully) went to a meeting with some Russians
This is a classic set up for creating some damaging stories about someone that you can later leak. The managed to put a weak and ineffective government in office, and seem to have plenty of material to keep drip feeding out to make sure that it stays unstable indefinitely.
Re: (Score:1)
It took two years to bring Nixon down. I'm curious as to why you think the timelines should be shorter for Trump. Adults have patience, children do not.
Re: (Score:1)
You're a moron APK. Trump is a traitor and that has NOTHING to do with welfare, food stamps, education/healthcare cuts or anything else.
Stop being Putin's bitch you cunt.
new CBS TV show (Score:2)
Tired of this subject... (Score:2)
It's questionable the Russians did anything. What was done could have been done by a handful of 15 yearolds. The real story in all this is the people in positions of power that we trust to run government don't have a clue about security and don't take it seriously enough. Lax security.
Stop blaming others when your using the equivalent of Roman locks and wax seals for security.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's questionable the Russians did anything."
By any reasonable definition of "questionable" it is absolutely not questionable. Emails from russians admit to it.
"What was done could have been done by a handful of 15 yearolds."
Arranging to meet with Trump family and campaign representatives to discuss information obtained via espionage, and to hold that meeting, is not something that can be done "by a handful of 15 year olds". Since what other things might have been done are not public knowledge, no one in
The Last Thing We Need... (Score:2)
Having a bunch of isolated intelligence gathering agencies is how we ended up with Pearl Harbor, and 9/11.
Re: (Score:2)
Pearl Harbor was not a mistake. The information was withheld on purpose to provide motivation/impetus/excuse to enter the war in an unbridled way. Don't believe me? Do some research, it's not a theory held by the tin-foil crowd, it is a view supported by the evidence and now more and more historians believe that to be the case.
Will 9/11 be seen in the same way in 50 years? Worse, maybe as a false flag operation? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory [wikipedia.org]
tl;dr
Armaments required (Score:2)
Perhaps a gravestone Emoji with "Byte the Dust" would be appropriate too.
"The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough" (Score:2)
We came in with the Internet. We came up with th
Re: (Score:2)
He'll fix everything with THE cyber.
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
I don't put much faith in the 1337 skilz of a 400 pound whale. People like that are generally not very motivated and as evidenced by their obesity, not very intelligent.
A Law banning cyber attacks against US Persons (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not really possible. Any counter attack will carry with it a lot of collateral damage. As long as we're honest about it and are prepared to deal with the fall-out. Once you go on the offense you have to expect a lot of people to counter you. That is a dramatic escalation and will likely make the Internet as an internal communications medium unusable. We'll be back in the dark ages relying on Internet 2 which once again has only universities and other research institutes connected to it.
The problem of DDoS
This is actually a positive development (Score:2)
Believe it or not, spinning it off into a new branch of the military is a GOOD thing for American civilians. Why? The military operates under constraints, scrutiny, and civilian oversight that increasingly seem to NOT apply to "mere" law enforcement agencies (especially post-9/11).
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it as a new cyber CIA that can support freedom fighters all over the globe.
Free of any 1970's FISA oversight and budget questions.
Re: (Score:2)
"Putin & I... impenetrable Cyber Security unit (Score:2)
That sounds like what he discussed with Putin:
"Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded."
Donald Trump, July 9th, 2017
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
The next day he said tweeted "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't..." But maybe it can. Perhaps Putin's role in it is one of the "Details [that] are still being worked out, but offi
Re: (Score:2)
... will put the fight in digital space ... (Score:2)
... on the same footing as more traditional realms of battle on land, in the air, at sea and in space ...
Which America is losing, bigly.
Naming Conventions (Score:2)
For Fuck's Sake: "cyber" is a prefix, it is not a noun all on its own!
I think the first time I heard it used that way was by - no surprise here - then-candidate Donald Trump during a debate [youtu.be]. And, as you can hear in that clip, using "cyber" as a noun sounds about as coherent as saying the internet is a series
Re: (Score:2)
"Cyber" is a noun on its own -- it means online (that is, simulated and manually performed) sex. This entered Urban Dictionary over a decade ago, and it wasn't new then. If you think of it this way, it will make blowhard politicos much funnier.